WPCl. U:V % 0 w@r 4   0  0D 0JA 0T 0 e  0^ 0h? 0r 0| 0 0 1uU,  0dL BU,U *|#B)DC AM  D3X6P 0@?b "v~v%v& AO,- 0D- D/ . BO.,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  @A eBCDDDEFDGӀHӀT~| ,,3|xV((3ݘ$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7 XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  (3Z$ `!TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT7 XXdXXd7    2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial r !  #d#%     \RA'\#d#   )  .$BOSTON.OPN$BOSTON.OPN/  % Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G'dxd  !  #d#%    ! \RA'\#d#   %   YYY FILED%X May10,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.%AppellateCourtClerk  , !#d#%     \RA'\#d#    $       Theseoffensesinvolvedfourjuvenileswhohadbeenplacedinthefostercareoftheappellantorhadbeenadoptedbytheappellantandhiswife.Onthedatestheoffenseswereallegedtohaveoccurred,thevictimswerebetweenfourteenandeighteenyearsold.Thedistrictattorneygeneralprotemindicatedthatoneofthevictimshadrecantedhisstatementofpenetration,compellingthedismissalofapproximatelyfifteenofthepresentmentcounts.Moreover,theStatewasunabletoestablishthedatesandtimesofmanyoffensesduetocontradictorystatementsbythevictims.Finally,atleastoneofthevictimswasexperiencingemotionalproblemswhichlimitedtheprosecutorsabilitytoproceedinthosecases.("$      !#d#%     \RA'\#d#    $       SeeBingham,910S.W.2dat455(citingAshby,823S.W.2dat170);Statev.Bonestel,871S.W.2d163,167(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Byrd,861S.W.2d377,380(Tenn.Crim.App.1993);Statev.Jones,No.03C019302CR00057(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,November22,1994),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1995).  !#d#%     \RA'\#d#    $       Becauseourreviewisentirelydenovo,weneednotaddressalloftheerrorsallegedbytheappellantinhisbrief. 5 !#d#%     \RA'\#d#    $       Adefendantiseligibleforprobationifthesentenceimposediseightyearsorless,unlesstheaccusedstandsconvictedofcertaincrimessetforthinthestatute.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035303(a)(1994Supp.).  !#d#%     \RA'\#d#    $       Thoseconvictedofviolentfelonyoffensesandthoseconvictedoffelonyoffensesinvolving crimesagainsttheperson,asprovidedbyTitle39,Chapter13,Parts15oftheCode,arestatutorilyexcluded.Tenn.CodeAnn.4036106(a).Theappellantsconvictionsforsexualbattery,Tenn.CodeAnn.3913505(1991),fallwithintheexcludedoffenses.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &$$Xd&#$$Xd#%     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#   & L)+(;+'h|` | `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ FEBRUARYSESSION,1996 STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) No.03C019505CR00154 Appellee   )     ) SULLIVANCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.FrankL.Slaughter,Judge ROBERTBOSTON ,  )     ) (SexualBattery,2counts;assault) Appellant   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:LeslieS.Hale    CharlesW.BursonAsst.PublicDefender   AttorneyGeneralandReporterPostOfficeBox839 Blountville,TN37617   ElizabethT.Ryan      AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493          FrankA.Harvey      DistrictAttorneyGeneralProTem      Kingston,TN37763OPINIONFILED:򀀀REVERSEDANDREMANDED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,RobertBoston,appealsthesentencingdecisionoftheSullivanCountyCriminalCourt,contendingthatthetrialcourtshouldhavegrantedhimfullprobationoranalternativesentencepursuanttotheTennesseeCommunityCorrectionsActof1985. Theappellantwasinitiallychargedwiththirtythreecountsofincest,eighteencountsofstatutoryrape,andfourteencountsofsexualbattery. ,   ׀OnSeptember30,1994,pursuanttoapleaagreement,theappellantenteredAlfordpleastotwoamendedcountsofsexualbatteryandoneamendedcountofassault.Allremainingchargesweredismissed.Thetrialcourtthenimposedasentenceoftwoyearsforeachsexualbatteryconvictionandasentenceofelevenmonthsandtwentyninedaysfortheassaultconviction.Thetrialcourtorderedthatthesentencesbeservedconsecutively. OnDecember15,1994,attheconclusionofasentencinghearing,thetrialcourtplacedtheappellantinthelocalcommunitycorrectionsprogram.However,onFebruary23,1995,atasubsequenthearing,thetrialcourtremovedtheappellantfromthecommunitycorrectionsprogramandorderedincarcerationinthestatepenitentiary.Thetrialcourtfoundthattheappellantwasstatutorilyineligibleforplacementinthecommunitycorrectionsprogram. Afterreviewingtherecord,wereversethejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@ FACTUALBACKGROUND  OnSeptember30,1994,attheguiltypleahearing,theprosecutingattorneyindicatedtothecourtthathehadagreedwithdefensecounseltopostponeanyrecommendationbytheStateconcerningthemannerofserviceoftheappellant'ssentence.Theprosecutingattorneysuggestedthatahearingbeheldinapproximatelytwomonthsinordertopermitcompletionofthepresentencereportandanypsychologicalreportsrelevanttothesentencingdetermination. OnDecember15,1994,thetrialcourtconductedasecondhearinginordertodeterminetheappropriatemannerofserviceoftheappellant'ssentence.Atthishearing,boththeprosecutingattorneyanddefensecounselsubmittedmemorandaoflawwhichoutlinedtheirrespectivepositions.Theappellantdidnottestifyatthehearing.However,theappellant'swifedidtestify,contendingthatherhusbandhadpledguiltyonlyto"protectourchildren,toprotectme,andtoprotecthimself."Thetrialcourtalsoconsideredthepresentencereport,whichrevealsthattheappellantwasthirtythreeyearsofage,hasnopriorcriminalhistory,isacollegegraduatewithadegreeinelementaryeducation,andwascurrentlyemployedbyatemporaryplacementservice.Finally,theappellantintroducedapsychologicalevaluationpreparedbyaDr.Young.Inhisreport,Dr.Youngopinedthattheappellantwouldnotbenefitfromincarceration.Additionally,Dr.Youngrecommendedanextensivecounselingprograminvolvingindividualpsychotherapy.Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrialcourttentativelysentencedtheappellanttoacommunitycorrectionsprogram,orderingthathebecommittedtotheHayHouse,aresidenceoperatedundercommunitycorrectionssupervision.Thecourtdirectedthat,asaprerequisitetocommunitycorrectionssentencing,theappellantsubmittothecourtaplansettingforthanappropriatecounselingprogram. OnFebruary25,1995,thetrialcourtheldyetanotherhearinginordertodetermine"whatmightbeappropriateinthewayofcounselinginthiscase."However,thetrialcourtexpressedconcernthattheappellantwasstatutorilyineligibleforplacementinacommunitycorrectionsprogram.Nevertheless,thehearingproceeded. Theappellantcalled,ashisonlywitness,Dr.NancyLanthorn,aclinicalpsychologist.Dr.Lanthorndescribedherplanofcounseling,involvingweeklyindividualsessionsduringaperiodofapproximatelytwelvemonths.Shefurthertestifiedthattheappellant'sspecialneedscouldbetreatedmoreeffectivelyinaprivatesettingasopposedtoaninstitutionalenvironment.Sheassertedthattheappellantwouldnotposeadangertothecommunity. ThetrialcourtacknowledgedthequalificationsofDr.Lanthornandappearedtoaccreditheridentificationoftheappellant'sspecialneedsrequiredforcommunitycorrectionsplacementpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4036106(c)(1994Supp.).However,thetrialcourtfailedtomakeanyfindingsconcerningeitherthesuitabilityofDr.Lanthornscounselingplanorwhethertheidentifiedspecialneedscouldbeservedbestinthecommunityratherthaninacorrectionalinstitution.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4036106(c).Rather,thetrialcourtremovedtheappellantfromthecommunitycorrectionsprogram,holding,"Now,IwithsomereluctancedenyMr.BostontherighttoparticipateinaprivateprogramattheHayHouseandIpredicatemyreasoninguponthestatutoryprohibitionthatwe'vediscussedbefore,that's[Tenn.CodeAnn.]4036106(a)(2).Theappellantappealsthisdecision.@ ANALYSIS  Theappellantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredindenyingtheappellantprobationandin"discontinuinghisplacementinthecommunitycorrectionsprogram."TheStatearguesthattheappellantisnotasuitablecandidateforalternativesentencing. Initially,wenotethattheappellantisentitledtothestatutorypresumptionofalternativesentencing.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035102(5)and(6)(Supp.1994).However,thispresumptionmayberebuttedby evidencetothecontrary.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035102(6).SeealsoStatev.Bingham,910S.W.2d448,454(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1995).Evidencetothecontrarymayincludethefollowingsentencingconsiderations,codifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.4035103(1990): `  ` (1)Sentencesinvolvingconfinementshouldbebasedonthefollowingconsiderations:0 (A)Confinementisnecessarytoprotectsocietybyrestrainingadefendantwhohasalonghistoryofcriminalconduct;0 (B)Confinementisnecessarytoavoiddepreciatingtheseriousnessoftheoffenseorconfinementisparticularlysuitedtoprovideaneffectivedeterrencetootherslikelytocommitsimilaroffenses;or0 (C)Measureslessrestrictivethanconfinementhavefrequentlyorrecentlybeenappliedunsuccessfullytothedefendant.    Bingham,910S.W.2dat454(citingStatev.Ashby,823S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.1991)).AcourtmayalsoapplythemitigatingandenhancingfactorssetforthinTenn.CodeAnn.4035113(1990)and114(Supp.1994),astheyarerelevanttothe4035103considerations.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035210(b)(5)(1990).Finally,thepotentialorlackofpotentialforrehabilitationofadefendantshouldbeconsideredindeterminingwhetherheshouldbegrantedanalternativesentence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035103(5). Becausethetrialcourtimproperlyconsidereddeterrenceindenyingprobation, .   ׀andincorrectlyinterpretedtheCommunityCorrectionsAct,wedonotafforditssentencingdeterminationapresumptionofcorrectness. /   ׀Uponadenovoreview,weconcludethattheappellantisnotnecessarilyprecludedfromtheimpositionofanalternativesentence.However,althoughtheappellantiseligibleforprobation, 0   ׀thecircumstancesoftheoffenses,Bonestel,871S.W.2dat169(citingStillerv.State,516S.W.2d617,620(Tenn.1974),includingtheappellantsabuseofapositionofprivatetrust,Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(15),aresufficienttosupportadenialofprobation.Inotherwords,theappellanthasfailedtoestablishhissuitabilityfortheprivilegeofprobation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035303(b);Bingham,910S.W.2dat455. TurningtotheCommunityCorrectionsAct,eligibilityforsentencingunderitsprovisionsisgovernedbyTenn.CodeAnn.4036106(a)and(c).Thereisnodisputethattheappellantisineligibleforcommunitycorrectionssentencingundersubsection(a). 1   ׀However,onewhoisineligibleundersubsection(a)isnotexcludedfromconsiderationundersubsection(c),whichprovidesasfollows:8 Felonyoffendersnototherwiseeligibleundersubsection(a),andwhowouldbeusuallyconsideredunfitforprobationduetohistoriesofchronicalcohol,drugabuse,ormentalhealthproblems,butwhosespecialneedsaretreatableandcouldbeservedbestinthecommunityratherthaninacorrectionalinstitution,maybeconsideredeligibleforpunishmentinthecommunityundertheprovisionsofthischapter. First,thiscourthaspreviouslyheldthat,inordertobeeligibleforcommunitycorrectionssentencingundersubsection(c),theoffendermustbeeligibleforprobation.Statev.Staten,787S.W.2d934,936(Tenn.Crim.App.1989);Statev.Crowe,No.01C019503CC00064(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,July6,1995).Wehavealreadyconcludedthattheappellantisstatutorilyeligibleforprobation.Hence,theappellantiseligibleforcommunitycorrectionssentencing.Crowe,No.01C019503CC00064,Statev.Currier,No.03C019404CR00149(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,January11,1995);Statev.Blackburn,No.02C019111CC00253(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1993). Second,adeterminationthattheappellantissuitableforplacementintheprogramalsorequiresthefollowingfindingsoffact:(1)theoffenderhasahistoryofchronicalcohol,drugabuse,ormentalhealthproblems,(2)thesefactorswerereasonablyrelatedtoandcontributedtotheoffenderscriminalconduct,(3)theidentifiablespecialneed(orneeds)aretreatable,and(4)thetreatmentofthespecialneedcouldbeservedbestinthecommunityratherthaninacorrectionalinstitution.SeeStatev.Wilson,No.03C019209CR00305(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,March22,1993)( Itisquestionablewhetherthedefendantsneedscouldbestbeservedinthecommunitywhentheevidenceofferedatthesentencinghearingindicatedthatthedefendantneededtobestrictlysupervisedtokeephimawayfromyoungchildren).Asnotedearlier,thetrialcourtfailedtomakethesefindings,becauseitincorrectlyconcludedthattheappellantsineligibilityforcommunitycorrectionssentencingundersubsection(a)precludedtheapplicationofsubsection(c).Moreover,therecordisinsufficientforthiscourttodeterminetheappellantssuitabilityforcommunitycorrectionssentencing.@ CONCLUSION  Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed.Thiscaseisremandedforadditionalfindingsandadetermination,consistentwiththiscourtsopinion,oftheappellantssuitabilityforcommunitycorrectionssentencing.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge CONCUR:__________________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge__________________________________WILLIAMM.BARKER,Judge